Farmer v. Farmer

Boyd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. This case is before us on an appeal from a decree which dismissed an amended bill of complaint filed by James Q. Farmer, administrator of Bridget Quinn, against Mary A. Farmer and Margaret M. Farmer, who were nieces of Bridget Quinn, and the Metropolitan Savings Bank of Baltimore. The theory of the bill is that a deposit by Bridget Quinn in that bank, on August 1, 1912, of the sum of $82,966.45, in the name of “Bridget Quinn, in trust for herself and Mary A. Farmer, joint owners, subject to the order of either, the balance at the death of either’ to belong to the survivor,” was the result of improper influences and dominion exerted over her Aunt Bridget by Mary A. Farmer, and that Bridget did not understand the effect of such entry. Between August ⁷¹ 1, 1912, and July 9, 1917, when Bridget died, other deposits were made in that account and interest added, so that there was the sum of $106,933.68 in it at the time of her death.

The bill also alleges that there had been paid by the trustees under the will of Patrick M. Q|uinn to Bridget Quinn and Margaret M. Quinn, her sister, between June 1, 1910, when the present trustees were appointed, and the death of Bridget Quinn, the sum of $25,083.47, of which only the sum of $12,444.87 was deposited, leaving $12,638.60 to be accounted for, and of that amount the sum of $5,972.82 had been paid to Bridget between her last deposit in bank and her death, which was unaccounted for. The object of the bill was to have the amount in bank at the time of her1 death transferred to, or paid over to the appellant, and to require Mary A. and Margaret M. Farmer to account for the $12,638.60. .Patrick M. Quinn died in 1886, leaving a will by which, after providing for some legacies, he¡ left his entire estate to P'a,trick J. Farmer, his nephew, in trust for the benefit of the testator’s three sisters, Sarah Craig, widow, Margaret Quinn and Bridget Q|uinn, during their lives and the lives of the survivors and survivor, with remainder to the six children of another sister, Ann Farmer, who had pre-deceased him. Sarah Craig died January 4, 1891, Margaret Quinn died December 15, 1910, and Bridget Quinn, as we have seen above, July 9, 1917. Patrick J. Farmer, the trustee named in the will, died May 7, 1910, and on June 1, 1910, James Q1.

Farmer and Mary A. Farmer were appointed trustees in his place. They paid to Margaret and Bridget Quinn the net income from the estate of Patrick M. Quinn until the dearth of Margaret, and after that to Bridget Quinn. Margaret and Bridget had several accounts in banks in their joint names with provisions similar in form to the one of Bridget and Mary A. Farmer mentioned above, and they resulted in the balance going to Bridget, upon the death of Margaret. The great bulk, if not all, of the money of Bridget came from the estate of her brother Patrick and from ⁷² what Margaret had received from that estate, together with interest on the deposits.

Four of the six children of Ann Farmer died before Bridget Quinn. James F. died in 188-8, leaving surviving him a widow and four children (the plaintiff being one of them), Bernard J. died in 1894, John F. in 1898, and P'atrick J. on May 7, 1910, none of them leaving descendants, excepting James F. The defendants, Mary A. and Margaret M. Farmer’, are the other children of Ann Farmer. They received the estates of their deceased brothers, John F. and Patrick J. Farmer, and they and the four children of James F. were, at the time of her death, the next of kin of Bridget Quinn, there being no other relatives of her of equal degree of relationship'. The estate of P'atrick M. Quinn, after the payment of legacies, was valued at about $75,000.00.

Exceptions were filed by the plaintiff to certain of the testimony of Mary A. and Margaret M. F'armer and to some other evidence, and the defendants excepted to certain evidence of the plaintiff. It cannot be doubted that Mary A., Margaret M., and James Q. Parmer were incompetent to> testify to any transactions with or statements made by Bridget Quinn under the teams of the statute (Sec. 3 of Art. 35 of the Code), and the decisions of this Court construing that statute are too numerous to requia’e the citation of many of them, but that of Martin v. Munroe, 121 Md. 679 , shows that what traaaspired at- a bank, in l’efei’eiace to a deposit made in the name of a deceased party, comes within the prohibition of the statute, although a party to the cause is not made incompetent to testify at all, but only as stated above. Some of the testimony of these parties is therefore1 not to- be excluded on account of the provisions of the statute, but other poa-tions are, and they ax’e material parts. As the recox’d is a very large one, we will not attempt to quote the testimony at lengjth, but will content ourselves for the most- part with giving the sub-stance of it on the several points involved.

The briefs to a great extent ignore the exceptions to- testimony which were filed as to the competency of the witnesses ⁷³ named, and discuss the facts as if there were no such exceptions, although there can be no doubt that much of it is inadmissible. "We will confine ourselves to such facts as we deem material and are supported by competent evidence, or are admitted, keeping; in mind that the witnesses mentioned are not made incompetent to testify at all, but are only prohibited from testifying to statements by and transactions with Bridget Quinn. The record shows that for many years, the Quinns' lived together at the corner of Madison and Stirling Streets in the City of Baltimore until the death of Patrick M. Quinn in 1886, Mrs. Craig* in 1891 and Margaret Quinn in December, 1910. The evening of the day Margaret, was buried, Bridget Quinn went to live with her nieces, Mary A. and Margaret M. Farmer, at their home on the corner of Aisquith and Madison Streets, a short distance from her former home, and continued to live with them until her death.

During all of that time, Mary A. and James Q. Farmer were trustees under the will of Patrick M. Quinn, and all of the income which Bridget had was derived from what she received from those trustees: and the interest on the money she had in bank. ' There had been an account in the Commonwealth Bank in the, name of Margaret Quinn in trust for herself and Bridget Quinn, joint owners, etc., the balance of which ($16,735.91), Bridget drew out, October 7, 1910, and deposited in the Metropolitan Savings Bank, and on February 9, 1911, she drew out the balance of an account in the Metropolitan Bank ($16,103.81), which stood in the name of Margaret Quinn, in trust for herself and Bridget, etc., and deposited that in her own account, that being after Margaret’s death. She also had an account in the Marine Bank, the balance of which ($28,348.07) she drew out on August 1, 1912, and deposited in the Metropolitan Bank. Those three items were included in her account which she had entered in trust, for herself and Mary A. Farmer. On January 30, 1895, an account was opened at the Metropolitan Bank in the name of Bridget, in trust for ⁷⁴ herself and sister Margaret, in which $6,000 was entered on that day, and that was the beginning of the account which was finally transferred on August 1, 1912.

On the same day, January 30, 1895, an account was entered in that bank in the name of Margaret, in trust for herself and sister Bridget, which was opened with a deposit of $6,001.12, and the balance in that account was tire one transferred to Bridget’s account on February 9, 1911. There is no valid evidence in the case tending to show that Bridget ever said or did anything during the period of nearly five years between the time the account was entered to the joint use of herself and Mary A. Farmer and her death, that she had not so entered the account, or that she did not understand that at her death it would pass to Mary A. Farmer, unless it can be said that it may be inferred from the evidence of Mrs. James F. Farmer and Mary B. Farmer, who said that she told them over and over again that she was saving her money for Mary A., Margaret, M., and the children of James F. The appellant contends that that shows that she did not understand that she had so entered her account in bank as to. pass it to Mary A., or the effect of such an entry. But if we give full effect to the evidence of Mrs. Farmer and Mary B. Farmer, the conclusion contended for by the appellant does not necessarily follow. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Bridget did not have full confidence in her niece, Mary A. Farmer, at least during the time she lived with Mary A. and Margaret M. Indeed, the contention of the appellant is that she whs under her influence and dominion.

If she did have full confidence in her, as she apparently had, the entry of the account in the joint names was not unnatural, or necessarily unjust, or at all surprising under the circumstances. Patrick M. Quinn, the founder of this fortune, provided for his sisters first, the income of his estate going to the three while living, then to the survivors after the death of one, and h> the survivor when only one was left, and then the remainder to the children of ⁷⁵ his deceased sister Aim Farmer. When Bridget and Margaret Quinn became the survivors, they had their bank accounts so entered that, upon the death of either, the balance went to the survivor. Neither of them then provided for their nieces., Mary A. and Margaret M. Farmer, in the entries in bank, nor for any of the children of their nephew, James F. Farmer.

Upon the death of either Margaret or Bridget Qjuinn, their nieces, the defendants, would have had no legal right to the balance in bank, owing to the form in which they were entered. As Bridget was the1 survivor, she received the balances and, although they were the nieces of Margaret and Bridget, Mary A. and Margaret M. Fanner got nothing by the death of Margaret Quinn, and would have received nothing from those accounts, if Margaret had survived. Was, it wrong or unjust in thus leaving out Mary A. and Margaret M. Farmer? Margaret and Bridget Quinn had the right to do as they pleased with their money, and if there had been an attempt by Mary A. and Margaret M. Farmer to have the entries in bank declared invalid when Margaret Quinn died, it would have been next to impossible to have succeeded, although when Margaret Quinn died, in December, 1910, they and Bridget Qfiinn were her only next of kin, as at that time grandnephews and grandnieces were not entitled to participate in the distribution of a perspnal estate, if there were nephews and nieces living.

It was not until April 4-, 1912, that the statute giving grandnephews and grandnieces the right to stand in the place of their deceased ancestors was passed. As Margaret and Bridget Quinn thus left out their two nieces, it would, on the face of such entries in bank, seem to have been as unjust and inequitable in their doing so, as it. was for Bridget to leave out the children of James1 F. Farmer. But it is altogether probable that Bridget was satisfied to trust her niece, Mary A., to take care of her1 sister, Margaret M. Farmer, and she may have had in mind also her grandnephews and grandnieces. The testimony of Mary A. was ⁷⁶ that as she and her aunt were going from the Marine Bank to the Metropolitan Bank on August 1, 1912, her aunt said to her, “Mary, I am going to have your name put in my bank book in the same manner my sister Margaret’s is put in, because if anything should happen to me it would save trouble,” and she said, “Well, Aunt B., there is my srster Mag — I meant my sister Margaret.” She said, “It is just the same.

As long as you are with me, let it go at that.” Margaret M. Farmer corroborated her sister in saying that after they got hack to the honsei, her aunt told her what she had done, and she told her aunt that was all right. The plaintiff excepted to that and other evidence which Mary A. gave as to what transpired at and on the way to the bank, and then claimed that the defendants had not sufficiently proven that Bridget thoroughly understood the effect of the transfer. As we have already said, that evidence, was incompetent and must he stricken out, although in another phase of the case it migjit have helped the plaintiff more than the defendants, as will he seen later, but as the account was entered to. the joint use of Mary A. and Margaret M. a few days after Bridget’s death, Margaret has no reason to complain, and is not complaining. It is just what might well have been done.

The evidence shows that Mary A. always went to the bank with Bridget after she went. ,to live with her nieces., that Mary was with her the day she entered her account in the Metropolitan Bank to the use of herself and Mary, and it may well be assumed that she entered it as she did because sbe believed that Mary would provide- for and take care of her sister, just as sbe (Bridget) had done for her' sister, and she may have expected and understood that, her niece would provide for her grandnephews and grandnieces. It is the sort of confidence which an aunt might have in her nieces, but not such as must lead a court to the conclusion that it was the result of undue influence. When Margaret Quinn died, it, was perfectly natural that Bridget would want to live with her nieces, who were her ⁷⁷ nearest relatives. There is no evidence that she did not want to live with them, or even that they urged her to do so, and it was not only proper for her to go to them, but it would not have been wise for one of her' age to live alone.

It is established by the evidence that Bridget Quinn, although in the neighborhood of eighty years of age when she went to live with her nieces, w'asi a woman of remarkably good health. Mary B. Farmer, sister of the plaintiff, testified that she was of large physique, and that she did not know of her- having’ any ailments excepting gome bronchial trouble on one occasion, and occasionally she would complain of indigestion. All of the witnesses who testified on that subject agreed as to her physical condition. Dr. Wilmer Brinton said he had been her physician for 36 years, and that he was called to see her about 2 A. M., July 9, 1917, when she was very ill, was then semi-conscious,’ that he saw her at 10 o’clock at night on July 3rd, after she had fallen downstairs and had a contusion of the face and arm, from the fall; that he saw her July 3rd, 4th and 6th and dismissed her at that time; that he had attended her in October or November, 1915, for bronchitis, when she was under his care for about three 'weeks,, and he saw her every day during the twenty-one days she was under his cam He was asked: “At that time, tell his Honor what were the- state and qualities of her mind?” And replied: “Perfect, sir; as far as I could see by comparison with my previous acquaintance with her.” Then there is in his testimony the following: “Q. How would vou characterize, for the court’s information, her mentality with regard to the powers of her mind and the powers of her will ?

A. I think extraordinary good for a woman advanced in life, extraordinary good, a woman of good Common sense. She always impressed me as being a woman of average mental condition, even when she was very much younger than she was then. I saw her in November, 1915. Q¡.

Did you ever observe any weakness of miud or will in her? A. None at all, never did.” On further examination, he- said: “Of ⁷⁸ course, my visits to her were purely professional, and when I saw her in November of 1915. I did not see her again until July, 1917; these two occurrences in July, and then was called to see her in her last illness. I was much impressed when I saw her after an interval of a year and a half, that there had been no marked change, although she had fallen and hurt herself.

Although she had fallen and hurt herself badly, sire talked to me as she did! on many occasions. My calls were quite infrequent to her, a year and a half from 'the time she had bronchitis until the time of the injury.” Then there appears in his evidence the following: “Q. Was she in any condition of childish dependency when you saw her? A. Not to my knowledge. That would be my professional opinion expressed now of her condition then.

Q. And her condition had not changed, from the time you knew her as a young woman? A. No, air; I saw no material chang:e at all in her case. Q'. Would you say sire was capable of attending to her business transactions and of making a contract and executing a deed?

A. I am not in a position to say that. I do not know, that, sir. I do not know. I mean to say this, I do not know, I could not say that she was in a condition to make a contract.

I could not say, except I think she was mentally in a very good condition. Q1. Did you see anything about her to indicate that she could not make a valid deed or contract or to attend to business? A. No, I did not.” We do not understand that Dr. Brinton meant to express any doubt about her mental condition, even then, which was several years after the deposit was made, but he simply showed a caution in answering such questions, which unfortunately experts do not always manifest.

Father Ennis testified that he first knew her in 1912, and from that time called to see her about once a month except when there was sickness, and he then went oftener. EDe described her as heavily built, ‘hnd as far as her mental qualities went, a woman of good, strong’ will, determination of character and ⁷⁹ of sinceres! honesty,” and that “her mental powers were perfectly clear and defined and direct.” He said he did not observe any change in her mental powers up to the time of her death, although physically she got weaker, he thought from rheumatism, and about a month before her death, he administered Holy Communion to her at the house, and she was then, “perfectly clear, and just as determined as I had known her in the beginning and all through the successive visits.” A number of witnesses testified to the effect that she was a woman of rather decided character and, although some of them expressed opinions as to her mental condition, which were not admissible because sufficient foundation had not been laid for giving opinions, there is no evidence] to show the contrary, and unquestionably the weight of the evidence tended to show that she was a woman of remarkable physical strength and of good common sense. According to Doctor Brinton, her sister